BAE Systems has been awarded a £418 million contract by the U.S. Army for the continued production of M109A7 Self-Propelled Howitzers and M992A3 ammunition carriers.
The contract, as detailed in a recent press release, extends the production period and delivery schedule for these vehicles until 2025.
The M109A7, the most recent model in the M109 family, serves as the primary indirect fire support system for the Army’s Armored Brigade Combat Teams (ABCT). As stated in the press release, the M109A7 boasts enhanced capabilities in size, weight, power, cooling, readiness, force protection, and survivability, say BAE.
Dan Furber, director of ground vehicle production at BAE Systems’ Combat Mission Systems business, expressed the company’s commitment in relation to the contract.
“This contract furthers our commitment to helping the U.S. Army meet its mission needs,” he said. Furber highlighted the vehicle’s role on the dynamic battlefield, adding, “The battlefield is constantly changing, but the ABCT can feel assured in the indirect fire support capability this vehicle provides.”
The press release also highlighted the design improvements of the M109A7, noting advancements in chassis, engine, transmission, suspension, and steering system. The design is aligned with the Army’s extended-range lethality goals, featuring a new high voltage architecture and enhanced survivability.
With this contract, the total value of BAE Systems’ commitments for M109A7 production has reached £2.5 billion since the initial contract in 2017.
All the bad-arse comments about the UK’s current AS90 but our M109s went years ago! If this US system is that good why did the MOD sell off our fleet?
Maurice wrote:
“”why did the MOD sell off our fleet?””
Because it is the nature of the Tory party to sell anything and anything in which to cut costs and no doubt earn a backhander.
Except for the minor problem that they were disposed of in the 1990’s you’re right so the wicked Tories elected in 2010 are obviously to blame.
That’s telling him!
Sure, it was the Tories elected in 1992 instead!
Are you sure you’re sure because to be fair I’m not sure so maybe.😉
The last remaining 83 M109s (50 odd A2 and around 30 A3 variants) in British Army service were sold to Austria in 1994…
Fair enough. You learn something every day. It was the wicked Tories thern, just not this lot.🙂
Because the AS90 was superior in many areas to the mark of M109s we had at the time – mostly A1 and A2 and just a handful (Qty 32) of A3s.
This article is about the A7.
However, wouldn’t it be rational to include M109A7 in the competition to replace AS90? A given that performance, price, all the ‘ilities, would be the primary decision criteria, nonetheless, somewhat intangible factors may also exist (e.g., commonality w/ US forces, support of (and potential tax revenue derived from) BAES, etc.). 🤔
You would think so. I do like the idea of some commonality with US forces. Especially if we have a production line here in GB.
However, we are talking MOD acquisitions where “rational” is a taboo word. They consider wheeled Archer as a replacement for AS90, rather than a complimentary asset with some overlap, that can keep pace with Boxer.
Must admit, I’ve been watching the hype about the ROK K9A2 and it is impressive. Something reflected in sales numbers/slice of the global market.
Forget anything non UK or non EU, we’re entering an era where support for UK jobs will trump capability and cost.
K9a2 offers the best UK industrial participation out of any of the alternatives.
Buying from the EU will not support British jobs. Only if military equipment in manufactured here, will we maintain employment and skills. I’m with Louis on this one.
It would but AS90 replacement will either be manufacturer in UK or a EU co-op project as the replacement decision will fall to the next government who have made it central policy to buy British or join EU defense projects and end international tendering.
BAe would be wasting their time pitching MA109 when their own Archer is more likely to be chosen.
I bemoan the fact that AS90 has been upgraded very little over the years since its introduction into service in 1992 – probably just got a radio upgrade (Bowman replacing Clansman).
The Braveheart programme initiated in 1999 to give it a longer 52-cal gun to replace the 39-cal gun and improved munitions was cancelled as the revised ammunition was not acceptable (not sufficiently insensitive).
Therefore it is deemed to be elderly, out of date and warranting replacement.
We are where we are – I fully agree that M109A7 should be one of those under consideration as well as the South Korean K9 Thunder (but its burst rate of fire 3 rounds in 15s is slower than AS90s (10s)!!
I think they are different in every way compared to the 1970s models we used. The newer ones are based on the bradley Hull and components. 39 cal replaced with a 52.
Not sure why it’s not a runner for the British army now, at least we would plug into US supply lines and stocks. Realistically 96 guns isn’t going to be enough to keep a production line open if we went for Archer or Boxer variant.
Korea and the k9 would give some UK build buy if we wanted a quick solution these are in build.
Does seem ridiculous to turn to a domestic solution when the small numbers were not cost effective and we had no real intention or ability to keep updated as has happened with 109. That said the Archer or Boxer platforms wouldn’t simply rely on UK acquisitions any more than alternatives. Even if a production line were opened here further upgrades to the system generally could be incorporated within it.
“The Republic of Korea Armed Forces will confirm the ROC for K9A2 Block-I upgrade in March 2022. The K9A2 is expected to be operational by 2027. The military is designing the K9A3, with a firing range of 100 km. The operational K9A2 technology demonstrator was revealed to the public by Hanwha Defense in February 2022.”
Defense Acquisition Program Administration (DAPA) released new footage of the automated loader & firing system of K9A2 Thunder self-propelled howitzer.
This K9A2 technology demonstrator is equipped with a fully automated turret capable of firing & reloading the howitzer with a single push of a button by the operator. This system is among the “core technologies” being developed for K9A2 SPH and improves the overall rate of fire.
Although this system looks complex, K9A2’s automated loader & firing system utilizes simple & proven off-the-shelf industrial technology found in factories. This ensures high durability and ease of maintenance.
K9A2 is an ongoing upgrade program of the existing K9/A1 platform to further increase its lethality and capability. K9A2’s development will be followed by the development of K9A3 which will feature unmanned technology.”
Just a point, would it be wise to purchase the K9A2 but build them in KD form in the UK? There is a risk in logistic terms to purchase complete vehicles from South Korea considering a major conflict could break out at any time. Relationships are at an all-time low and instability appears to be a major concern. I know we have built RN supply ships there without incident, yet matters have changed since that time.
Hello maurice10,
My idea would be to do the exact same thing as Poland. You may recall I suggested this many moons ago before Poland jumped on the bandwagon. The Redback IFV selected by Australia was a missed opportunity in my opinion.
Short-term, purchase directly until we have the capability in place to start manufacturing them ourselves.
They are also in the process of developing their next generation of MBT with a 130mm main gun. This would be a very smart move also as we are developing Armour which may very well interest them.
They have pretty much all of the main types of equipment the British Army requires, and they can deliver on time and in numbers!
K-2 BLACK PANTHER
The 120 mm gun can fire a variety of munitions. It is compatible with all standard NATO tank rounds. It is also capable of firing the new KSTAM (Korean Smart Top-Attack Munition) rounds. These are smart target-activated fire-and-forget projectiles, but shouldn’t be confused with anti-tank guided missiles.
The KSTAM has its own guidance system, aided by four stabilizing fins. At the final stage, a parachute will deploy to slow its fall and accurately engage the target. Such a principle is broadly similar to mortar-launched anti-tank munitions.
Furthermore, the K-2 tank can fire KSTAM munitions from behind the cover. The KSTAM has a maximum effective range of 8 kilometres.
The secondary armament consists of a coaxial 7.62 mm machine gun and K6 12.7 mm heavy machine gun, mounted on top of the roof. Both of these machine guns have a very respectable ammunition load (12 000 x 7.62 mm and 3 200 x 12.7 mm). Furthermore, the K6 heavy machine gun has an automatic system, that identifies friend from a foe.
CHUNMOO
K239 MLRS could simultaneously attack 12 enemy targets, providing a long-range strike capability and allowing the military to use its ballistic missiles for high-value targets instead.
With an increased range from 85 kilometres (53 miles) to more than 200 kilometres (124 miles).
AS21 REBACK IFV
In terms of armament, the AS21 Redback is fitted with a two-man turret armed with one Bushmaster MK44S 30mm automatic cannon, a 7.62mm coaxial machine gun, eight 76mm multi-barrel smoke grenade dischargers, and two SPIKE LR2 anti-tank guided missile launchers.
It also has the option of a 40mm automatic cannon.
BIHO II
The Biho II revolves around a modular turret, which can mount a 3D radar, an electro-optical sensor, and an additional tracking radar.
From marketing materials, the tracking radar appears to be for “C-RAM,” or shooting at unguided artillery projectiles that may be too small or fast to be picked up on electro-optical sensors.
All of the sensors and their mounts are meant to be modular on the Biho II, with different configurations for different roles being possible, including radar or EOTS-only turrets.The new turret also appears to be designed to accommodate a variety of guns.
Slides about the Biho II suggest that it could mount 30mm, 35mm, or 40mm guns depending on customer preference. The missile fit of the Biho II is also designed to be modular, with short-range SAMs, medium-range SAMs, and even anti-tank missiles presented as options that could be mounted to either side of the turret in pods.
One configuration shows the Biho II system as a tracked vehicle mounting two quad-packs of AIM-9X anti-air missiles.
Like their motor industry, South Korea produces ‘international quality’ in their cars so why not military vehicles? The UK could strike a deal with them to buy in and build in? The UK gave up its military vehicle manufacturing for whatever reason and now is dependent on foreign companies to supply. Admittedly, the home assembly percentage is vital for logistical reasons. This being the case, as long as 70% is assembled in the UK, we should be open to purchasing heavy armour from Korea and Japan. The new MBT might offer the UK a way forward beyond CH3, though I guess Rhinemetal will be very influential in that programme. Again, I reiterate my concern about importing complete units but a UK assembly of 70% would resolve the total reliance/logistics issue.
👍
Why would you manufacture such things in a country with no domestic steel production, horrifying energy costs, high taxes and an unqualified, underpaid and demoralised workforce that order paltry amounts of the end product? We have no manufacturer of rifled barrels in the UK either.
BAE can still manufacture M777 at Barrow. Curious that the US continues to buy SPGs with a 39 caliber barrel, when all the talk in the UK is about the need for longer range.
Can they? Perhaps. Do they? No. I’m not sure what all that chat about conscription was a few weeks back. What are we planning to do with 300k 40 year old bullpups? It would be like the start of “Enemy at the gates”.
Only about 140,000 SA 80’s A2 and A3 , dish out the pitch forks pike !
Well, longer range is better, though we can see in Ukraine that barrels done last as long and in a sustained engagement, ability to keep firing a bit longer is also a factor.
Don’t think we have machinery for large gun barrel manufacturing now as demand to small to be economic .
No domestic steel production ?
That is correct. Steel from ore production is ending at the last blast furnaces in Port Talbot. Then it’s just scrap railings time in arc furnaces.
Biggest issue here is a conflict in Asia. Everybody knows that in this case, sea lines will most likely be disrupted between South Korea and UK. Assembly, sure… What about the components from South Korea? Atlantic is difficult to secure. Pacific is worst. Channel seem in the capability of everyone. Tell Ukraine about repleshmebt in a conflict… Tell them it is not an issue… It definitely is. Better Choose a PzH2000, a Caesar or an Archer. It is like all lessons from WW2 are forgotten so easily… It is just unbelievable that some European countries consider arms supply from a country they can barely be confident to have a secure sea line. In case of a major conflict in Asia, you will have the Houthi issue multiplied by 10. Look how peasant armed by a third rank nation are able to stop all traffic in the Red Sea… Unbelievable, just unbelievable… In case of a major conflict, we will have to secure petroleum from Gulf countries, already a significant challenge. Who is part of the brics? Do they really all like us? Don’t you have a few issues with countries in the south of Africa? And in the south of America, what is the relation with Argentina? Being dependent of weapons from South Korea, an aging country under constant nuclear threat of North Korea, big buddy of Xi. What a marvelous idea… Well just my opinion as a French man.
If we can have production lines here and feed in our own technologies (armour, radar etc) where required. I’m 100% behind the entire package. Ammunition compatibility with NATO being enough for now.
Exactly George, It makes perfect sense to me. They are developing some excellent aircraft too, and I’m sure they would be very interested in working along with us on that front using some of our advanced technologies in their fighters.
Sorry to pour cold water on this, won’t happen. The next government will want to collaborate far more with Europe on weapons programs. They will begrudgingly keep Tempest and AUKUS. You can apply as much logic as you like but this is politics where’s there no logic applied 😀
It works for Poland! Glass Half Full at my end 😅
This pretty much supports my assessment
https://www.politico.eu/article/uk-labour-british-german-military-cooperation-treaty-defense-keir-starmer/
Do you realize that you Brits have almost no army!? The number of personnel in the British Army is ridiculous, as if you are a country with 5-6 million inhabitants, and not a country with (for Europe a large) 67 million inhabitants! You have the same situation with a number of tanks, APS’s, IFV’s and other military vehicles of any type, including mechanized artillery. If it were not for your “big brother”, the United States and NATO, you would not be able to project force anywhere in the world. Any average Army would smash you on the battlefield now.
Think AS90 was a bit of a wasted project really , for what it was worth should of stuck with M109s and just did upgrades .🤔
No, not at all. AS90 was superior in just about every way from the mainly M109A2 fleet we had (there was only a handful of A3s). Its combat performance was excellent. Why the nay-saying? Its rate of burst fire is still way ahead of the K9 Thunder.
We should have upgraded AS90 over the years but didn’t. I think it just got its radio upgraded. That is the more interesting, if very depressing, story.
Ok Graham thanks for that 🍺
GM,
Somewhat OT, but just read an article (Forbes com) which indictes that some non-updated UK equipment is still fit for purpose. Evidently, the Ukrainians are using CR-2s, operating near Robotyne with 82nd Brigade, as either mobile or embedded artillery w/in tree lines. The CR-2s are destroying Orc fixed, concrete emplacements, principally at night. Intercepted radio traffic from Orc observers, characterized UKR vehicles as ‘huge and loud.’ 😁👍
…indicates…🙄
Very true. I think most of what we have sent Ukraine is non-updated or only ever received minor upgrades in service with our forces. It is all of course capable of delivering more combat power than their elderly Soviet era kit. Many would still rank the unmodernised Challenger 2 as one of the best 3 or 4 (or 5) tanks in the world.
We would not use our Challys that way – we would mostly use them in the Offence in Combined Arms (CA) manouevre with Infantry, artillery, combat engineers etc.
But in the days of BAOR we trained to use our tanks (Chieftain/CR1) more defensively as it was clear that the Warsaw Pact would be the invader, majoring in the Offence. However we employed mobile defence in BAOR days, again which the Ukrainians are not doing (they seem to be using the Challys in a form of largely static defence).
None of which invalidates the way Ukraine is using the Challys. They have few of them and do not want to expose them to operating in open areas where they can be engaged by mines and drones and ATGW, and risk losing a large number (we all know they have lost one of the 14). They are clearly doing a good job in the role they have been assigned – and their power and noise is rattling the enemy.
If they fully gear up and train for CA manouevre in the future, the vulnerability of tanks is reduced. Maybe that will happen when conditions permit. UKR really can’t recover large swathes of their country without CA manouevre in the Offence.
Understand. Less sanguine than before re additional US equipment which UKR must have to succeed. Evidently EU is taking tentative steps toward seizing interest payments on frozen Orc capital and crediting it to UKR. That is several billion/yr., but the Ukrainians need tens of billions. Otherwise, this conflict could remain a WW I style trench warfare conflict indefinitely.
When do the NL and DK F-16s arrive in country? They should help greatly to reduce Russian second echelon forces and to support UKR counterattacks.
The EU’s move on redirecting seized interest payments is good but they have still not endorsed their latest financial aid package:
CNBC – ‘The European Union failed to agree Thursday on a 50 billion-euro ($54 billion) package in financial aid that Ukraine desperately needs to stay afloat, even as the bloc decided to open accession negotiations with the war-torn country’.The aid was vetoed by Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orban, delivering another tough blow to Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky’.
or the latest military aid package:
‘Reuters. BRUSSELS, Jan 31(Reuters) – A standoff between Germany and other European Union countries has cast uncertainty on the future of an EU military aid fund that has bankrolled billions of euros in arms for Ukraine.
While Berlin and many other EU nations say they are strongly committed to keeping up weapons supplies to Kyiv, the bloc’s members have been wrangling for months over how best to do so.
Do you wonder why we left the EU?! Now we can make our own decisions and not have to kow tow to Brussels.
I have always thought that this war will last a long time and will probably end only due to Putin leaving office…or leaving via the office window!
Danish and Dutch F-16s should start to be delivered sometime during the spring. As both highly valued and severely quantity limited (perhaps an initial squadron) assets, not certain when UKR will commit them to the air campaign. Deliveries will continue into 2025. No one has apparently broached the subject of contributing retired A-10s; do not have the faintest clue why that is the case. ,🤔
Thanks. I hope it won’t be too late for the F-16s to turn things around. A-10: they would be hard to maintain given their age?
Yes, but USAF would probably be given instructions to expend every effort to assist in maintenance of donated A-10s.
12 Jan 2024
6 rounds per minute
The K9 Thunder has a maximum rate of fire of 6 rounds per minute and is capable of multiple-round simultaneous-impact firing. It is able to fire three rounds in 15 seconds, each in different trajectories so that all of the shells arrive on target at the same time.
The newest M109 version for U.S. service is the M109A7, formerly known as the M109A6 Paladin Integrated Management (PIM). The M109A7 shares common components with the Bradley Fighting Vehicle such as the engine, transmission, and tracks. This creates commonality with other systems and maximizes cost savings in production, parts inventory, and maintenance personnel.
The M109A7’s on-board power systems harness technologies originally developed for the Non-Line-of-Sight Cannon; the electric drive is faster than the previous hydraulic system, and the automatic rammer more consistently rams the round into the gun for consistent velocities and better accuracy.
It features a 600-volt on-board power system to accommodate additional armour and future networking technologies as they become ready. The M109A7 can sustain a one-round per-minute rate of fire and a maximum rate of fire of four rounds per minute.
Cheers Nigel 🍺 🇬🇧
You’re welcome!
AS 90
It can fire standard charges up to 24.7 km (15.3 mi) using 39-calibre long barrel and 30 km (19 mi) with 52-calibre long barrel
The maximum rate of fire is 3 rounds in 10 seconds (burst); 6 per minute for 3 minutes (intense); and 2 per minute for 60 minutes (sustained).
These are still impressive figures for an SPG designed in the 80s and some are better than the much more modern K9 and M109A7.
Just think what AS90 would be like if MoD had bothered to upgrade it during its (so far) 30+ years service! ..as the Americans have done with M109.
The proposed Braveheart upgrade to a 52cal gun (and other mods) foundered on a South African munition not meeting newly adopted IM criteria – surely we could have sourced ammo from elsewhere. Its a disgrace.
They most certainly are impressive figures, Graham.
Better than the K9A1/2?
In September 2020, the K9 howitzer was chosen by the Australian Army as the preferred solution for the Protected Mobile Firepower requirement under its LAND 8116 programme. The project will deliver a lethal, heavily armoured, and tactically manoeuvrable land system. The final contract is anticipated to be awarded in early 2022.
K9 howitzer armament
The main weapon is the 155mm / 52 calibre gun. It has a burst rate of fire of three rounds per 15 seconds and a maximum rate of fire of six to eight rounds a minute for three minutes.
Sustained rate of fire is two to three rounds a minute for one hour. The K9 Thunder is designed to meet the up-to-date tactical concept on shoot and scoot.
The gun can fire a standard M107 high-explosive (HE) projectile for a maximum range of 18km.
Maximum range firing the HE rocket assisted projectile (RAP) with uni-charge of five zones, is 30km. It can also fire a K307 projectile with a modular-charge of six zones for a maximum range of over 40km.
Fire control The gun’s firing is controlled by onboard fire-control equipment. The information can be transmitted through a data digital radio link or voice communications. The automatic loading system places the projectiles onto the ammunition tray ready for fire. The K9 Thunder can open fire within 30 seconds at stand out position or within 60 seconds during movement.
The K9A1 upgrade has the automatic fire control system that includes text-based DOS system, graphical windows system, an electronic time data loader, and a digital map.
Self-protection
The K9 Thunder’s welded steel construction protects crew and on-board equipment against the 155mm shell fragments, 14.5mm armour piercing shells and anti-personnel mines. The air purification system and on-board crew gas masks are provided for NBC warfare.
K10 ammunition re-supply vehicle (ARV)
The K9 Thunder is supplemented by a K10 automatic ammunition re-supply vehicle (ARV) built on the K9 platform.
The K10 is a fully tracked vehicle that follows the main artillery battery. The K10 ARV can automatically transfer 12 rounds per minute through a conveyor belt.
This avoids the exposure of the crew to the combat environment. Each K10 supports two K9 guns and can carry 104 rounds of ammunition.
K9 engine and mobility
The K9 Thunder is powered by an MTU MT 881 Ka-500 8-cylinder water-cooled diesel engine coupled to the Allison ATDX1100-5A3 transmission. The engine develops a power output of 1,000hp with a power-to-weight ratio of 21.6hp/t. The auxiliary power unit in the improved K9A1 variant can provide up to 8kW (10.7hp) of additional power. The propulsion system provides a top speed of over 67km/h and a cruising range of 360km.
The K9A1 and K9A2 upgrades
The K9A1 variant is equipped with improvements such as automatic fire control system, driver’s night periscope, and auxiliary power system for enhanced efficiency. The improved K9A1 provides increased range, fast fire rate, and higher mobility during day and night times.
Hanhwa proposed the K9A2, an advanced variant of the K9 Howitzer, for the UK’s Mobile Fire Platform programme that is aimed at upgrading the artillery capabilities of the British Army. The K9A2 is expected to enhance the firing rate, automatic ammunition loading, and other capabilities of the artillery.
The advanced variant is being tested. The development programme is being implemented by Hanwha Defense and the Korean government-owned research and development institution, Agency for Defense Development.
The proposed solution for the UK programme will feature mine protection kits, unmanned turret, and composite rubber tracks. Hanwha’s robotic K10 ammunition resupply vehicle will also be integrated to provide an automated resupply capability.
Also.
DSEI 2023: Hanwha Unveils the K9A2 Howitzer
https://
defence24.com/industry/dsei-2023-hanwha-unveils-the-k9a2-howitzer
You would not expect a SPG with a short 39-cal barrel designed in the 80s (AS90) and never appreciably modernised to be as good as a SPG many decades more modern and with a 52cal barrel (K9).
But AS90:
Not bad for a 1980s unmodernised 39-cal SPG. Pity we didn’t modernise it over the years – I think we just changed the radio.
Will it ever stop evolving?
Korean Hanwha K9A3 cannon come with an increased 70 km range
“The K9 Thunder self-propelled howitzer is considered by dozens of experts to be the best in the world. The South Korean government will apparently try to maintain this “expert assessment” in the future. That’s why Seoul has already signed an agreement with Hanwha Defense that the next K9 model will have an increased range.
This model is already being worked on and it bears the name K9A3, i.e. the third version of K9. According to South Korean sources, the K9A3 will have an increased range of 70 km. Currently, if the K9 fires specialized projectiles it can reach a maximum of 54 km. 70 km range is a really serious distance. This instance can be compared to the range of a short-range ballistic missile, or the maximum interception range of a missile fired by Israel’s Iron Dome air defense system.
K9A3 is shrouded in mystery. There is no concrete information as to exactly what will be different [besides the scope of course]. The latest operational version, the K9A2, currently uses a gun with a barrel length of .52 caliber. Media claims that the K9A3 will have a barrel length of 58 calibers.
It is because of this that it is assumed that the K9A3 will be able to achieve a range of 70 km not with special artillery shells, but with standard ones. This suggests that the use of specialized projectiles can increase the range even further.
K9A3 may be the beginning of the development of a new series of howitzers, South Korean experts believe.
According to them, if the K9A3 shows accuracy during tests and achieves the desired range, this possibility is real, which could mean a new product in international markets. These are logical processes in the defense industry. We are witnessing modern products that have evolved from older developments.
Warsaw ordered 672 K9 self-propelled howitzers. Here we can note that it is the war in Ukraine that is the reason for this order. But it was planned, and the war in Ukraine was perhaps the catalyst for Warsaw to become more active.
Poland will also make its own K9, and even the industrial cooperation that has been agreed upon includes the use of a locally developed chassis.That’s how K9 caught the attention of the US.
Washington invited the Korean manufacturer to test new projectiles fired from the K9. This is great for the Korean company because their successful launch means that the K9 will be available with rounds that are in service in both the US and Europe.
The tests were successful, and the projectiles that the K9 fired at 50 km were respectively XM1113 Rocket Assisted Projectiles [RAP], and Modular Artillery Charge System [MACS] charges. And what’s more, K9 blasted them away. It took only 16 seconds for the cannon to fire three shells in succession. Impressive, right?”
I can’t get my head around Poland ordering 672 of the K9 Thunder SPG. Makes our order for 179 AS90s back in the day look feeble. More feeble will be the number of MFP artillery pieces we eventually order – probably less than 100!
Nigel, you sound like an arms dealer!
I missed a trick there!😆
Both the turret and hull has been changed on the American M109’s at various upgrade stages .so is nothing like the early ones .
We replaced our M109A2 and A3s by the far superior AS-90 in 1992. You are now talking about the ‘2024 version’ of M109 and perhaps comparing it to the AS-90 which sadly was not upgraded since 1992.
Basically a brand new vehicle/system compared to previous models. It’s a nice gun.
The U.K. should have a capability competition. Let the guns prove themselves.
AS90, archer, M109a7, K9, Caesar, PZH2000, Krab and anyone else that fancies their chances. There are quite a few cheaper offerings from countries like Czech Republic, Ukraine, South Africa and so on. The M777 could be worked onto a truck system.
Capability and cost should be high up the priority list. For a fixed budget getting 50 top range guns versus 200 guns offering 95% of the abilities should be appealing.
Technically speaking the Archer system is vehicle agnostic. So rather than fitting it to the MAN HX2, it could also be fitted to Boxer!
Boxer is probably the most expensive wheeled AFV in the world. I am sure the MAN HX2 would be much, much cheaper.
The HX truck will be significantly cheaper than Boxer. Though Boxer will offer a lot more crew protection. I’d imagine Boxer to be better off road as well. Though HX will likely win based on cost alone.
As a concept though the Archer installation would offer some benefits over the RCH155 version. Though holding slightly less rounds, Archer is faster firing. Plus it’s a whole lot lighter. I think the turret height would be lower, so it could go in an A400M.
I thought I would do a double check. Pretty sure that the Archers we have bought are first version models (surplus to the Swedish Army) based on the Volvo A30D all-terrain hauler, rather than the later version based on the MAN HX2. [BAE Systems Bofors began trials for the HX2 variant in Jan 2020]. The RA versions certainly look more like Volvo than MAN. Anyway…
Archer of course has an armoured cab. Not sure if we know for sure if Archer has less crew protection than Boxer – I don’t have the metrics. You may be right about Boxer having better off road capability – not sure.
We have bought a number of Archers as an interim until MFP is delivered. We are therefore not also going to buy the RCH155, which is Boxer-based in case anyone did not know that. Duty rumour is that our army will only get 623 Boxers instead of the full 1,018 – so another reason we will not buy Boxer RCH155.
Hi Graham, yes we purchased the first version of Archer, that uses the Volvo 6×6 truck chassis. The Archers that we bought and the ones sent to Ukraine were part of a cancelled Norwegian order. I’m not sure why they binned the contract, especially as the systems were built?
I agree that it’s unlikely we will get the Boxer with the RCH155. If you see one up close, they’re massive! Makes a AS90 look small. From what I know it won’t fit in a Herc, but I believe that goes for an A400M as well.
I feel the RA will be like a kid in a sweet shop and spoilt for choice. With what’s available cure on the market. Both Archer and AS90 have acquitted itself in Ukraine. Though some AS90s have been lost. Ukrainian crews have done a number of videos of using both in action. With I feel the Archer coming out on top.
I think what will have a big sway on what the RA choose for going forward. Is their on hand experience using the Archers we have. Any other system will be judged against it.
Thanks. I think the RA will feel like they are in a very small sweet shop which doesn’t sell very much at the moment. Just 14 Archers on order so far, which will only part-replace the 32 AS90s gifted to UKR.
But things should look up more so, when the MFP decision is made and hopefully a large order placed.
I hear UKR have lost four AS90s destroyed, but I have not heard how.
Think it’s best to leave it on the Volvo chassis saves time and money plus don’t HMG making a mess of things with there Record even though should be a simple project .Volvo said to be top unite on trails and showing good results in the field etc. 🇬🇧
Yes. I don’t think anyone seriously thinks we would tinker with what we have just bought even if it seems that the Swedish army is switching to a MAN HX2 chassis.
Didn’t know that actually Graham will look into that 👍
Sadly there is an issue with the Volvo chassis. After using the gun, the gun barrel is stowed in an armoured box. The barrel sits horizontally behind the cab.
Therein lies the issue. The gun uses a barrel 52 caliber’s long. So if in the future it needed to be extended to say 59 or 62 calibre. Without major modifications to the truck chassis, you are stuck with a 52 calibre barrel.
Using the MAN HX truck, when stowed the barrel sits on top of the truck’s cab. Therefore, even a longer barrel would do the same.
It would be interesting to test which chassis is better off road. The HX with 8×8 drive or the Volvo’s 6×6, but using the wide balloon tyres?
Bit off topic but BAE have brought Uk drone manufacture Malloy Aeronautics